Everyone knows it applied to freed slaves and has zero application to people illegally coming over the border. Everyone.
No one is claiming it applies to those people.
Sure you are. You saying they can sneak across the border, pop out a baby, and be rewarded with their anchor baby getting citizenship. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply if to you if your parents came here illegally.
Bet your great great great grandparents came here illegally.
What on earth would compel you to believe that? Is your belief that American immigration has always been a free for all?
Leftists are so dumb.
Says the idiot magat that thinks illegal immigration only happens under dem presidents.
And hate to brake it to you but there was a time when anyone could come and there was a time when this country followed the saying on the statue of Liberty.
Which is why, it goes without saying, hickory was wrong yet again.Everyone knows it applied to freed slaves and has zero application to people illegally coming over the border. Everyone.
No one is claiming it applies to those people.
Sure you are. You saying they can sneak across the border, pop out a baby, and be rewarded with their anchor baby getting citizenship. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply if to you if your parents came here illegally.
Bet your great great great grandparents came here illegally.
What on earth would compel you to believe that? Is your belief that American immigration has always been a free for all?
Leftists are so dumb.
I believe until the 1880s, anyone could show up. Until the 1920s anyone not Chinese could just show up. Is that wrong?
Don't see hickory post in this thread unless carra is hickory and wrong about never being a free for all
Btw, orange traitor and his ice goon squad are rounding up more than just illegal immigrants but the magats here defend anything and everything
But even if the baby is a citizen that doesn't mean that their parent is a citizen does it. So does that mean the baby could stay in the country legally but we could send the parent back.... not a good situation.https://open.spotify.com/episode/60rXDfAmVLDJ67biKXMqck
Yoo: Yep
Epstein: Nope
The relevant text: The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically Section 1, addresses birthright citizenship. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The argument turns on what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
Yes, for the most part.
It clearly doesn't apply to children of foreign officials enjoying some form of diplomatic immunity. If an ambassador or head of state gave birth while on an official visit or while here as part of her diplomatic station, the child would not be a citizen. The wife of the same, also, not a citizen. If the wife were here legally, but independent of her husband's role, that might be trickier. Say, for example, a Saudi princess fled to America and asked for protection/asylum, and we granted her leave to stay. If she gave birth, possibly a citizen.
Every foreign national who is not here in an official governmental capacity, but is still here legally, absolutely, their child is a citizen.*
I think the argument for unauthorized residents is a gray area. I think a good argument could be made that "anchor babies" are not citizens. But I think an argument can be made they are, as well. I think that's an open question that, up until recently, we probably assumed was closed.
*EDIT: I could see a distinction made between, say, those here on a tourist or student visa, and those who have, say, permanent resident status. That would require new law, though, as far as I am aware. There is no precedent for such a distinction.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know binary and those who don't.
As to the citizenship act, easy to explain. Our ancestors were racist SoBs that didn’t view Natives as human.
That's not what it was. The founders designed a system in which the Indian tribes were considered independent nations, but under a special type of federal authority. That's why they weren't citizens. They can't be compared to immigrants from a legal basis at all, because they were constitutionally a special case.
Not to mention they were here long before any of us Europeans.
Which is part and parcel of why they were a special case. The European powers, especially Britain, viewed the native tribes as separate nations, although of a lesser type, because they were uncivilized. So a native person living on tribal land that was nominally part of British North America would not be a British subject, but instead would be a subject of their particular tribal authority. But the tribe itself, being of a lesser type of nation, would be expected to recognize the British monarch as suzerain.
We inherited that way of thinking, so from the beginning, it was considered perfectly reasonable that "Indians not taxed," as they were described in the Constitution, were not citizens of the United States, even though their nations did have to submit ultimately to United States authority at the highest level. And it's why we, and our British forebears, dealt with them not by giving them representation and passing regular domestic laws to regulate them, but rather through treaties.
But even if the baby is a citizen that doesn’t mean that their parent is a citizen does it. So does that mean the baby could stay in the country legally but we could send the parent back…. not a good situation.
Take this with a grain of salt, because I am not an expert on immigration law, but my understanding is that it would be perfectly legal for us to send them back, but that there is a process for that child to claim/confirm his or her citizenship before reaching a certain age. So, say a couple of tourists have a baby while here, and then the family heads back to France. As long as the child follows the proper procedures with the US consulate, they could claim their American citizenship as they come of age.
@hurryinghoosiers there WAS a time when pretty much anyone of European origin could come. Is that what you’re longing to go back to? That was a time when America had an entire continent to settle and not enough people and no social welfare programs.
Only a complete moron would ignore time and circumstance.
Did you ignore it because you’re ignorant or bad faith?
The Emma Lazarus poem was mounted on the Statue of Liberty in 1903. By 1924, the U.S. sealed up its borders something fierce and that lasted until the 1960’s.
And you know none of this, you just regurgitate stupid platitudes. LEAVE HICKORY! Go now.
The Emma Lazarus poem was mounted on the Statue of Liberty in 1903. By 1924, the U.S. sealed up its borders something fierce and that lasted until the 1960’s.
I would argue that it was more like the '40's. There was a large influx of immigrants from Latino countries during WW2 under the Bracero Program because we were sending boys off to war and needed workers in the fields.
The Bracero program ended in the early '60s and the number of migrant workers dropped alot. Labor Secretary Wirtz tried to recruit 20,000 high school boys to make up the difference, but it didn't end well (they called it the A-TEAM if you are so inclined to look it up).
@bradstevens ok lawyer, as I understand it, one consideration is how big of a mess does overturning precedent set. So if the court overturns it, what happens to the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who thought they were citizens but suddenly aren't? Some for decades. How about their children?
@bradstevens ok lawyer, as I understand it, one consideration is how big of a mess does overturning precedent set. So if the court overturns it, what happens to the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who thought they were citizens but suddenly aren't? Some for decades. How about their children?
If I read right, Trump's royal decree only applies to those born beginning this year.
If the Supremes are entertaining this on the merits, we're in trouble.
@unclemark true, but if the president can overturn by fiat, than it never was in the Constitution and thus never really law. Someone will file suit over the people already here.
@unclemark true, but if the president can overturn by fiat, than it never was in the Constitution and thus never really law. Someone will file suit over the people already here.
There is separate SCOTUS precedent that protects citizenship from revocation in most cases, and that precedent is not dependent on birthright citizenship being upheld, as it rests on entirely different grounds. I'm not saying it isn't possible, of course. Anything is possible. But the most likely scenario is that, even if SCOTUS sides with Trump, everyone whose citizenship has already been recognized will remain citizens.
@bradstevens ok lawyer, as I understand it, one consideration is how big of a mess does overturning precedent set. So if the court overturns it, what happens to the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who thought they were citizens but suddenly aren't? Some for decades. How about their children?
If I read right, Trump's royal decree only applies to those born beginning this year.
If the Supremes are entertaining this on the merits, we're in trouble.
Why are you in trouble? Are you an illegal?
Why are you in trouble? Are you an illegal?
Don't worry, once we set the precedent that there is no settled law, everything is up to the whim of a president, you will love President AOC. Personally I don't want her as President, but seeing your enthusiasm for her is nearly enough to change my mind. Not quite though.
I’d also use the phrase “wherein they reside,” and argue that is an expressed residency requirement for the states as a very strong implied residency requirement for the U.S.